I thought you guys would find this info from the Verge and original link interesting:

From the Verge"Dutch photographer Iwan Baan captured a stunning shot of New York City for the latest cover of New York Magazine, but how exactly did he do it? Speaking to Poynter, Baan described how he rented a helicopter on Wednesday night after the storm hit to try and take a photo that would convey the duality of the city at that moment in time. Despite the freezing cold and motion of the helicopter, Baan spent an hour taking burst shots with a Canon EOS-1D X and 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens, ultimately achieving the cover picture with an ISO of 25,600, 1/40 shutter speed, and a wide-open aperture. The photographer didn't stop there, though: Dezeen has put together a slideshow of Baan's various pictures taken across a largely blacked out Manhattan in the aftermath of the storm."

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

To me the picture is a big deal because there arn't very many other ways to get such a dramatic capture. Cost aside -- from requests to the pilot (lets go over there, no up higher, now over here. try 500 more feet ... ahh thats it...) and strapping himself in dealing with the cold and the 1% keep rate, it all shows what one has to do to get shots like this.

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

I very much doubt that IS can dampen the high-frequency vibrations you get from a helicopter in flight. It's designed to deal with the low-frequency motion of human muscles. Aside from some stupid-expensive gyro-stabilized rig, about your only realistic choice is going to be what I call, "poor man's IS:" shoot a burst of images as steadily as you can, and if your boost is long enough, you'll catch a shot as the vibration takes you to the extreme of one swing before it starts the next sway -- that is, just as the pendulum is frozen at the end of its swing.

A 1Dx that can do 12 FPS with a really deep buffer is ideal for such bursts. And its extra mass doesn't hurt, either.

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

I very much doubt that IS can dampen the high-frequency vibrations you get from a helicopter in flight. It's designed to deal with the low-frequency motion of human muscles. Aside from some stupid-expensive gyro-stabilized rig, about your only realistic choice is going to be what I call, "poor man's IS:" shoot a burst of images as steadily as you can, and if your boost is long enough, you'll catch a shot as the vibration takes you to the extreme of one swing before it starts the next sway -- that is, just as the pendulum is frozen at the end of its swing.

A 1Dx that can do 12 FPS with a really deep buffer is ideal for such bursts. And its extra mass doesn't hurt, either.

b&

it definately helps reduce movement from vibrating platforms in operating industrial plant and i agree the 1D burst rate helps with keepers only 10 fps on my 1D though

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Where you got that information?

Of course assuming situation where amateurs would also turn it off, tripod use etc., when/why would pros turn off IS? What they would gain by doing that?

It is a nice picture. But why, when you are spending all that money, would you rent that lens. It does not even have IS, so in a helicopter your shot has to be lucky that you get it at the right moment. True that applies to a lot of photography. But surely he could have taken something else!

Most professional photographers rarely use IS or even turn it on.

Where you got that information?

Of course assuming situation where amateurs would also turn it off, tripod use etc., when/why would pros turn off IS? What they would gain by doing that?

Agreed. I am technically a professional (reporter/photog with a weekly newspaper) and I have IS turned off on the lens that has it (24-105) and I did not bother buying the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 because at the speeds I shoot, it's not going to have an effect.

Agreed. I am technically a professional (reporter/photog with a weekly newspaper) and I have IS turned off on the lens that has it (24-105) and I did not bother buying the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 because at the speeds I shoot, it's not going to have an effect.

So you saying all professionals work at only your kind of shutter speeds?